Research on problem-solving, judgement, and decision making documents systematic reasoning errors. Such errors are often attributed to reasoning shortcomings, an inability to think properly. However, recent research suggests another cause for those errors: insufficient attention to the critical premises in a problem, resulting in miscomprehension, such that, even if a person is capable of reasoning properly, she will fail to solve the problem correctly if she is operating on wrong premises. The first study in this article provided further evidence for this comprehension account of reasoning errors: Performance on reasoning problems was found to relate to verbal comprehension on a separate task. This suggests that reasoning errors are in part due to lack of comprehension. The upside of this account is that it should be possible to improve reasoning performance by drawing attention to the critical premises. Three additional studies provided consistent evidence for this hypothesis, showing that the same participants who at first proved unable to solve certain problems correctly were able to overcome this inability and performed better when simple attention-capturing devices drew their attention to the critical premises.
AckermanR.GoldsmithM. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 18–32.
2.
AckermanR.LautermanT. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1816–1828.
3.
AckermanR.ThompsonV. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617.
4.
BallL. J.QuayleJ. D. (2000). Alternative task construals, computational escape hatches, and dual-system theories of reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 667–668.
5.
BialekM.PennycookG. (2018). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1953–1959.
6.
Bourgeois-GirondeS.VanderhenstJ. B. (2009). How to open the door to system 2: Debiasing the bat and ball problem. In WatanabeS.BloisdellA. P.HuberL.YoungA. (Eds.), Rational animals, irrational humans (pp. 235–252). Keio University Press.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CommanderN. E.StanwyckD. J. (1997). Illusion of knowing in adult readers: Effects of reading skill and passage length. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 39–52.
9.
De NeysW.RossiS.HoudéO. (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 269–273.
10.
DunloskyJ.LipkoA. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.
11.
EricksonT. A.MattsonM. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–552.
12.
EvansJ. S. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
FerreiraF.BaileyK.FerraroV. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
14.
FerreiraM. B.MataA.DonkinC.ShermanS. J.IhmelsM. (2016). Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict. Memory & Cognition, 44, 1050–1063.
15.
FongG. T.KrantzD. H.NisbettR. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253–292.
16.
FongG. T.NisbettR. E. (1991). Immediate and delayed transfer of training effects in statistical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 120, 34–35.
17.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
18.
GentnerD.LoewensteinJ.ThompsonL. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.
19.
GilovichT. (1991). How we know what isn’t so. Free Press.
20.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
21.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.
22.
HaighM. (2016). Has the standard cognitive reflection test become a victim of its own success?Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 12, 145–149.
23.
HooverJ. D.HealyA. F. (2019). The bat-and-ball problem: Stronger evidence in support of a conscious error process. Decision, 6, 369–380.
24.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
25.
KahnemanD.FrederickS. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.
26.
KihlstromJ. F. (2004). Is there a “people are stupid” school in social psychology?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 348–348.
MataA.AlmeidaT. (2014). Using metacognitive cues to infer others’ thinking. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 349–359.
29.
MataA.FerreiraM. B.ShermanS. J. (2013). The metacognitive advantage of deliberative thinkers: A dual-process perspective on overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 353–373.
30.
MataA.FerreiraM. B.VossA.KolleiT. (2017). Seeing the conflict: An attentional account of reasoning errors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1980–1986.
31.
MataA.SchubertA.FerreiraM. B. (2014). The role of language comprehension in reasoning: How “good-enough” representations induce biases. Cognition, 133, 457–463.
32.
MeyerA.FrederickS.BurnhamT.Guevara PintoJ. D.BoyerT. W.BallL. J.SchuldtJ. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 16–30.
33.
MeyerA.SpuntR.FrederickS. (2015). The bat and ball problem [Unpublished manuscript].
34.
MorewedgeC. K.YoonH.ScopellitiI.SymborskiC. W.KorrisJ. H.KassamK. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 129–140.
35.
PennycookG.FugelsangJ. A.KoehlerD. J. (2012). Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning?Cognition, 124, 101–106.
36.
RaoelisonM.De NeysW. (2019). Do we de-bias ourselves? The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem. Judgment and Decision Making, 14, 170–178.
37.
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 249–262.
38.
SanfordA. J.SanfordA. J.MolleJ.EmmottC. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109–130.
39.
SchommerM.SurberJ. R. (1986). Comprehension-monitoring failure in skilled adult readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 353–357.
40.
SedlmeierP.GigerenzerG. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380–400.
41.
SidiY.OphirY.AckermanR. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority-does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks?Metacognition and Learning, 11, 15–33.
42.
SidiY.ShpigelmanM.ZalmanovH.AckermanR. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction, 51, 61–73.
43.
StanovichK. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.
45.
StiegerS.ReipsU. D. (2016). A limitation of the cognitive reflection test: Familiarity. PeerJ, 4, e2395.
46.
ThomasC.DidierjeanA.KuhnG. (2018). The flushtration count illusion: Attribute substitution tricks our interpretation of a simple visual event sequence. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 850–861.
47.
TraversE.RolisonJ. J.FeeneyA. (2016). The time course of conflict on the cognitive reflection test. Cognition, 150, 109–118.
48.
TrémolièreB.De NeysW. (2014). When intuitions are helpful: Prior beliefs can support reasoning in the bat-and-ball problem. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 486–490.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
